General 2028 Election

  • Thread starter Thread starter ZenMode
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 243
  • Views: 7K
  • Politics 
nycfan said:
It was a potentially costly stumble for AOC in part because it highlights a weakness for her generally (lack of foreign policy chops), but Trump gives fumbling answers like this pretty much daily and it is frequently glazed over by a press trying to force coherence on his rambling.

I think we should have a higher standard for political knowledge and discourse, but one stumble is hardly disqualifying (well, maybe the “what is Aleppo” moment is an exception), but all current and potential leaders should be held to the same scrutiny.
Click to expand...
 
The problem is that Trump has gone through his entire life bullshitting his way through questions he can't answer. So he's practiced at talking while ignorant.

AOC, by contrast, likely keeps quiet when she doesn't know. So, when put on the spot, she's unpracticed at bullshitting. It was the silence and "ums" that make her look bad. In reality, the content of that silence and most of what Trump or Vance have to say is more or less the same.
 
superrific said:
The problem is that Trump has gone through his entire life bullshitting his way through questions he can't answer. So he's practiced at talking while ignorant.

AOC, by contrast, likely keeps quiet when she doesn't know. So, when put on the spot, she's unpracticed at bullshitting. It was the silence and "ums" that make her look bad. In reality, the content of that silence and most of what Trump or Vance have to say is more or less the same.
Click to expand...
Worse in that they fill the void with drivel and nonsense that 1/3 of American believes to be true.
 
It should also be said that the question put to AOC was entirely improper. First, it's as much a military question as a policy question -- the American response would almost certainly vary depending on the circumstances of the hypothetical attack. Second, the American policy regarding Taiwan and China is so delicate, mostly interstitial and without any official formulation, that any statement coming from a member of Congress could have significant repercussions. I wonder if her pausing and stammering reflected that she was in real time processing how to deal with these factors.

What she should have said was, "I cannot make any statement about that. It's a question for the commander in chief after consultation with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I don't want to say anything that might be construed as a commitment either way. All I can say is that I won't at this time give a definitive answer either way." Something like that. She'll learn.
 
superrific said:
It should also be said that the question put to AOC was entirely improper. First, it's as much a military question as a policy question -- the American response would almost certainly vary depending on the circumstances of the hypothetical attack. Second, the American policy regarding Taiwan and China is so delicate, mostly interstitial and without any official formulation, that any statement coming from a member of Congress could have significant repercussions. I wonder if her pausing and stammering reflected that she was in real time processing how to deal with these factors.

What she should have said was, "I cannot make any statement about that. It's a question for the commander in chief after consultation with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I don't want to say anything that might be construed as a commitment either way. All I can say is that I won't at this time give a definitive answer either way." Something like that. She'll learn.
Click to expand...
 
nycfan said:
Click to expand...

Americans have proven twice that they won't elect a highly-qualified woman over an incompetent ignorant lying pedophile.

Harris and AOC, who could possibly be good Presidents, can't get elected. Buttigieg and Shapiro can't win for similar bigoted reasons.

Governors are the obvious choice as it's really hard to be elected as a sitting member of Congress.
 
nycfan said:
Click to expand...

While this poll a generally meaningless at this point, it’s funny how far DeSantis has fallen. As of 2022, the right was trying to make him the face of the Republican Party and heralding him as the best possible presidential candidate.
 
Icky Mettle said:
While this poll a generally meaningless at this point, it’s funny how far DeSantis has fallen. As of 2022, the right was trying to make him the face of the Republican Party and heralding him as the best possible presidential candidate.
Click to expand...
I so hope Vance is the GQPer presidential nominee in 2028 because I am a Democrat...
 
I think it will come down to Newsom, Kelly, Beshear or Shapiro. Newsom may be too progressive to win the general. Beshear is a little wooden but has appeal and a track record as a moderate. Kelly would be a strong candidate but voters seem to prefer former governors. Shapiro would be a good president but his religion may be a negative. The rest- Harris, AOC, Pete, Pritzker- are non-starters in my opinion.
 
uncleradar said:
I think it will come down to Newsom, Kelly, Beshear or Shapiro. Newsom may be too progressive to win the general. Beshear is a little wooden but has appeal and a track record as a moderate. Kelly would be a strong candidate but voters seem to prefer former governors. Shapiro would be a good president but his religion may be a negative. The rest- Harris, AOC, Pete, Pritzker- are non-starters in my opinion.
Click to expand...
I don't think Newsom is really that progressive at all. He's a political chameleon. But I do think his California record will allow him to be portrayed, credibly, as a hysterical left-wing SOSHALIST who supports sex changes for prisoners and that kind of thing. Between that and my concern that people will see him as a big, fat phony, I just don't think he's a great national candidate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top